Re: "Gilmore Girls" negotiations stall again

In article <gf1s33hqjjeusves0tfa25iiapls5mi1ff@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
David  <dimlan17@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Sun, 6 May 2007 16:38:41 +0000 (UTC), gazelle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>
>>In article <2gur33hvlhghj17kkdk7e6mr8j2a37ja80@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>David  <dimlan17@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>...
>>>I would argue that athletes are more im****tant to their s****t's
>>>success than actors are to a movie's. People go see movies with
>>>average actors but only want to watch the world's best athletes. If
>>>NFL players go on strike people aren't going to watch scabs or turn to
>>>arena football. 
>>
>>Funny.  I see it just the opposite.  Probably because I enjoy movies and
>>TV and think s****ts are stupid
>
>Well there's your problem right there.

Very mature.  I thought it was quite honest of me to state my bias at
the outset.

>>(though I certainly see the point that
>>actors and athletes are doing the same thing - as one poster put it,
>>"entertaining the m*****"), but it certainly seems to me that athletes
>>are a lot more interchangeable than are actors.
>
>The 700 major league baseball players aren't interchangeable with the
>next best 700 players. That was proven very well the last time
>baseball went on strike. But if the 700 best actors went on strike
>Hollywood would keep on running. 

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Common sense indicates that athletes are, basically, interchangeable.

I will point out, however, that maybe you ought to head back to your
s****ts
groups and note that none of the groups to which this thread is posted
has anything to do with s****ts.